alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN H

. JOHNSON; PAULA A

. JOHNSON,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 56358

D.C. No. 5:19

- cv

- 01387

- PA

- GJS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020 * *

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Stephen H. Johnson and Paula A. Johnson appeal pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing the ir diversity action arising out of foreclosure

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

district court ’ s dismissal based on claim preclusion

. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp , 297

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 56358

F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Johnsons’ action on the basis of

claim preclusion because the action involved the same primary right raised in a

prior state court action that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See San

Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Emps.’ Ret. Sys. , 568 F.3d 725, 734

(9th Cir. 2009) (federal court must follow state’s preclusion rules to determine

effect of a state court judgment; discussing elements of claim preclusion under

California law).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Johnsons’

motion to vacate or amend the judgment because the Johnsons failed to

demons trate any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or.

v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 63 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and

grounds for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b)).

To the extent the Johnson s contend that the district court abused its

discretion by denying their request for judicial notice of Richard A. Kalin o ski , Jr.’s

affidavit, we reject the contention as without merit. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the filing by Applied Energetics, Inc. (the “company”) of its
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008
      (the
“Report”) I, Kenneth M. Wallace, Chief Financial Officer of the company certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:




(i)
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and




(ii)
            the
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
                company.




This
      certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief
      Financial Officer of Applied Energetics, Inc. with the requirements of Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be used for any other
      purposes. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
      has been provided to Applied Energetics, Inc. and will be retained by Applied
      Energetics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
      its
      staff upon request.




/s/
                Kenneth M. WallaceKenneth
                M. WallaceChief
                Financial Officer





Date:
      August 11, 2008
19695

#### State v. Werner

December 6, 1996

Order No. 96-43

Affirmed
#### Compania Panamena Maritima San Gerassimo, S. A., Plaintiff, *v.*Internatonal Union Lines, Ltd., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

May 29, 1959.

*970*Platow i& Lyon (John P. Rowan*of counsel), for defendant.

*Poles, Grist, Tublin <Ss Patestides (John G. Poles*of counsel), for plaintiff.

Henry Epstein, J.

Defendant moves for an order vacating the attachment and all proceedings thereunder upon the ground that there has been failure of service of the summons within 30 days after the warrant was granted, as required by the provisions of section 905 of the Civil Practice Act.

The basic factual assertion is conceded and the warrant must be vacated if in fact the court does not have jurisdiction over the defendant. The contention that service of the summons was accepted is disputed. Heretofore defendant moved for the vacatur of the warrant and it is contended that thereby the defendant appeared generally. While by the decision denying the motion to vacate the court indicated it had jurisdiction of the subject of the action, it was not jurisdiction which defendant was challenging. It contended rather that because the parties were committed to arbitration no cause of action existed in favor of the plaintiff. The warrant was secured after plaintiff had demanded arbitration. While in the papers in support of the application for the warrant plaintiff asserted an action was to be commenced, it is obvious that no action could be continued by virtue of the arbitration act if there was insistence upon arbitration. Nevertheless, a warrant of attachment will not in such circumstances be vacated and it was not. But the agreement to arbitrate in New York subjected the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court and a warrant to secure the collection of any award is as much an enforcement of the award as a judgment to be entered upon any award made.

In any view of the matter the defendant has consented to the jurisdiction of the court and service of the summons following issuance of the warrant is unnecessary. This, too, must be the obvious result of the refusal of our courts to vacate a warrant despite the fact that prosecution of the action becomes impossible and is stayed pending the arbitration.

The motion is denied.
EXHIBIT 32.0




                      DIRECT INSITE CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT






     I, James A. Cannavino,  Chief Executive Officer of Direct Insite Corp. (the
     "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
     2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that::

     (1)  The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
          ended  March  31,  2009  (the  "Report"),   fully  complies  with  the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



Date: May 13, 2009





                                           /s/James A. Cannavino
                                           --------------------------
                                              James A. Cannavino
                                              Chief Executive Officer



<PAGE>

                      DIRECT INSITE CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT






I, Michael J.  Beecher,  Chief  Financial  Officer of Direct  Insite Corp.  (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that::

(1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended
     March 31, 2009 (the  "Report"),  fully  complies with the  requirements  of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934); and

(2)  The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: May 13, 2009
                                              /s/ Michael J. Beecher
                                              ---------------------------
                                                  Michael J. Beecher
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 11, 2022

NO. 03-22-00190-CV

R. J. and A. D. M., Appellants

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the final decree signed by the trial court on April 6, 2022. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s final decree. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s final decree.

Because appellants are indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
ofix-ex102_7.htm



Exhibit 10.2

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL N.V.

SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED

STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

 

WHEREAS, Orthofix International N.V. (the “Company”) has established and maintains the Second Amended and Restated Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Company’s Board of Directors desires to amend the Plan, subject to the approval of the Company’s shareholders, to increase the number of shares of common stock of the Company reserved and available for issuance pursuant to the Plan from 1,850,000 to 2,350,000. 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue and in exercise of the power reserved to the Company’s Board of Directors by Section 9 of the Plan, the Plan be and hereby is amended, subject to approval by the Company’s shareholders, in the following particulars, to be effective as of the date the Company’s shareholders approve the Amendment:

 

1.           By substituting the phrase “2,350,000 shares” for the phrase “1,850,000 shares” in Section 3(a) of the Plan.
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Equine Piroplasmosis in Imported

Sport Horses

Print

Equine piroplasmosis (EP) is a disease caused by blood-parasites, Theileria equi or

Babesia caballi. These parasites are naturally transmitted by certain species of ticks.

If not treated, horses can be chronically infected with this disease. They may show

no clinical signs or vague signs such as exercise intolerance, mild weight loss, and

transient fever. Infected horses can transmit EP to other horses either via ticks or

through human facilitated, or iatrogenic, blood-borne transmission. While the United

States is currently free of tick-borne transmission of EP, the disease is endemic in

many other parts of the world. Horses imported into the United States must test

negative for both T. equi and B. caballi prior to release from federal import

quarantine.

In recent years, EP has been detected in the United States in sport horses of various

breeds, including Andalusians, Lusitanos, Friesians, and warmbloods. These EPinfected horses were either prospects for or actively competing in sport horse

events, such as hunter/jumper, eventing, and dressage, some at high levels. They

originated from EP-endemic countries but had no record of being legally imported

into the United States. Further epidemiological investigation found the EP-positive

horses had been:

Illegally moved across the U.S. border from Mexico,

Were known to be EP-infected in their country of origin, and

Were moved illegally to avoid disease detection.
U.S. owners/buyers of these horses were often unaware of the horse’s disease status

or how it had entered the country. If you own imported sport horses and were not

involved in the legal importation of the horse, do not have documentation of USDA’s

EP-negative testing at import, or are unsure of how your horse entered the country,

you should consult with your veterinarian and consider testing for EP. EP-infected

horses found in the United States are eligible to enroll in the USDA-APHIS EP

treatment program. This program has been successful in permanently clearing the

infective organism from chronically infected horses, improving the affected horse’s

health, and eliminating the risk of transmission to other horses.

Learn more about EP at www.aphis.usda.gov.
nink_ex101.htm

  EXHIBIT 10.1
  
  
  
  	 
	1

	 

	 


  
  
  	 
	2

	 

	 


  
  
  	 
	3

	 

	 


  
  
  	 
	4

	 

	 


  
  
  	 
	5

	 

	 


  
  
  	 
	6

	 

	 


  
  
  	 7
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 70**  **05**

DEANDRE L’OVERTURE JACKSON , P etitioner

- Appell ant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE , Respondent

- Appell ee .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2 :1 4

- cv - 0 0 190

- AWA

- DEM )

Submitted : August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING , and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
DeAndre L’overture Jackson , Appellant Pro Se
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: DeAndre L’overture Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dis positive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite sh owing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is cour t and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
June 29, 2005

25925

#### State v. Wrightsman

Affirmed
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Page Not Found
        
                  Looking for something?

Image
    Ninth Architect of the Capitol George White and Senate Sergeant at Arms Martha Pope look on during a search for the Capitol's first cornerstone in 1991.

Ninth Architect of the Capitol George White and Senate Sergeant at Arms Martha Pope look on during a search for the Capitol's first cornerstone in 1991.The requested page could not be found. Perhaps these links will help you...

I am a:

Visitor
	Hill Employee
	Researcher/StudentOr:

Go to Homepage
	Search our Website
	Contact Us Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
**Exhibit 10.19**

AMENDMENT NO. 2, dated as of February 23, 2006, to that Employment Agreement dated August 1, 2003 (the “Agreement”) by and between Michael Kahane (the “Executive”) and AMERICAN MEDIAOPERATIONS, INC. (the “Company”). 

Effective as of the date first written above, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

1. Paragraph 6 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and the following substituted therefore: 

Employee Benefits. During the Contract Term, Executive shall be provided, in accordancewith the terms of the Company’s employee benefit plans as in effect from time to time, health insurance and short term and long term disability insurance, retirement benefits and fringe benefits (collectively “Employee Benefits”) onthe same basis as those benefits are generally made available to other similarly situated employees of the Company. Executive shall be paid a monthly auto allowance in the amount of $400.00 (Four Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents) beginningMarch 1, 2006. The Company agrees to immediately transfer title of the Company vehicle that Executive is currently assigned at a sales price of $10.00 (Ten Dollars and Zero Cents) to Executive. Company further agrees to “gross-up”Executive’s 2006 wages to compensate Executive for any and all additional income taxes that may be due as a result of the transfer of the vehicle to Executive. Executive will receive 30 “PTO” days per plan year (April 1st to March 31st). Unused “PTO” days may be carried over from year to year. Executive will be permitted to fly business class on any flight over three hour long and shall book said flight(s) through Company’s travel agent (ifbusiness class is not available on a certain route, first class travel will be permitted). 

All other terms and conditions ofExecutive’s Employment Agreement and any subsequent amendments of that Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment No. 2 as of the date first written above.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements for the quarterly period ending June 30, 1997 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,507
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,067
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (461)
<INVENTORY>                                         19
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 17,449
<PP&E>                                            2,008
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   30,273
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            15,763
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,273
<SALES>                                         13,274
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,274
<CGS>                                            5,221
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,613
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 880
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,219)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,219)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,219)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### State v. Samson.

17473

12/19/96

Affirmed
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 376 

To refer H.R. 3133, a bill making congressional reference to the United 

States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to sections 1492 and 2509 

of title 28, United States Code, of certain Indian land-related takings 

claims of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians 

of Michigan and its individual members. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 23, 2015 

Mr. BENISHEK submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

To refer H.R. 3133, a bill making congressional reference 

to the United States Court of Federal Claims pursuant 

to sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28, United States 

Code, of certain Indian land-related takings claims of 

the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan and its individual members. 

1 Resolved, That pursuant to section 1492 of title 28, 

2 United States Code, the bill (H.R. 3133), entitled ‘‘A Bill 

3 relating to certain Indian land-related takings claims of 

4 the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indi5 ans of Michigan and its individual members,’’ now pending 

6 in the House of Representatives, is referred to the chief 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 376 IH 

1 judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims for 

2 a determination as to whether the Band, on behalf of itself 

3 and of its individual members, has legal or equitable 

4 claims for just compensation against the United States for 

5 land-related takings occurring during the period between 

6 1855 and 1900 within the areas reserved for the Band 

7 and its members by Article 1 of the July 31, 1855, Treaty 

8 with the Ottawa and Chippewa, 11 Stat. 621. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS